published in Libera, M., Gainar, M. (dir.), Contre l'Europe? Anti-européisme, euoscepticisme et alter-européisme dans la construction européenne, de 1945 à nos jours, Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag, pp. 141-156, Jun 2013
It seems that euroscepticism has become a stable component of the European political landscape. I... more It seems that euroscepticism has become a stable component of the European political landscape. If this phenomenon has been extensively studied at the national level, oppositions to Europe expressed inside the EU institutions have been largely overlooked by scholars. This paper’s objective is to contribute to this field of research through an analysis of the UKiP Members of the European Parliament. It aims to determine how those representatives perceive their role within an institution to which they deny any legitimacy and how this affects their parliamentary practices. Based on an interpretative approach and a qualitative methodology, the analysis reveals that although they all oppose Europe, these parliamentarians develop two role orientations and quite diverging strategies within the institution.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books
recognized as relevant and legitimate players at the supranational
level and given tools to be involved beyond the scrutiny of their
national government. However, the last decade brought new
challenges to the Europeanisation of national Parliaments, with
several crises boosting intergovernmentalism. This study,
commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the
AFCO Committee, examines how EU national Parliaments have
adapted to all these challenges and assesses their involvement in
EU affairs over the past decade.
Surprisingly, only limited attention has been dedicated to Euroscepticism at the heart of the EP, the EU’s only directly elected institution. EU specialists tend to focus on the institution, its committees, the way it works as well as the behaviour of the largest political groups, neglecting thereby the opposition and smaller groups. Conversely, party scholars tend to concentrate on Euroscepticism outside parliament, and to overlook the European level. As a result, the attitudes, motivations and strategies of Eurosceptics at the supranational level remain largely understudied.
Eurosceptic and eurocritical MEPs are at the centre of a paradox: they are particularly successful during EU elections, campaigning on the basis of a Eurosceptic / eurocritical platform but once elected, they have to operate in an institution, and more generally a political system, they criticize or even oppose. Despite extensive literature on Euroscepticism and abundant research on the EP, little is known about the individual activities of these MEPs and on how they perform their representative function.
This book aims at filling in this gap. It provides the first in-depth analysis of how and why Eurosceptics conceive and carry out their representative mandate once elected in the EP. Lying at the crossroads of different strands of literature (Euroscepticism studies, EU and legislative studies, party politics), it examines the particular situation of Eurosceptics in the EP through a comparison between MEPs from 16 Member States and 30 political parties.
More specifically, the book:
• investigates how these actors cope with the tension between the Eurosceptic platform on the basis of which they were elected and the tasks and expectations arising from their representative mandate. It proposes a typology of four strategies developed by these actors.
• examines what the implications of the presence of these dissenting voices are for the EP’s deliberation, and how the institution has managed their presence.
• provides food for thought regarding the implications of the presence of Eurosceptic MEPs. It discusses the issues of the institution’s representativeness, democratic legitimacy and politicization. It is argued here that the presence of these critical voices and their strategies in the EP, rather than endangering European integration, could be an asset for the affirmation of the EU as a democratic political system, open to conflict.
Cet ouvrage propose une analyse des régimes politiques des 28 États membres de l’Union européenne avec, en trame de fond, un questionnement relatif à l’émergence d’un modèle européen de démocratie. Cette nouvelle édition, mise à jour pour tenir compte des derniers développements politiques et institutionnels, montre que les démocraties européennes, bien que partageant certaines similitudes, portent aussi la trace de leur trajectoire nationale propre.
Free access until July 17 http://ips.sagepub.com/content/current
This book provides a concise analysis of the EU and its dynamics by paying particular attention to its day to day operation. It aims to help students and scholars understand its evolution, its institutions, its decision-making and the interactions between the EU and various actors. Avoiding abstract theorizing, the authors propose an easy to read analysis of how the Union works while recognizing the complexity of the situation. Throughout the book, the key issues of European integration are addressed: democratic deficit, politicization, the role of member states, institutional crisis and citizen involvement.
Cet ouvrage a pour ambition de fournir une analyse concise de l’Union et de ses dynamiques, en accordant une attention particulière à son fonctionnement concret. L’étude du processus décisionnel, des interactions entre les institutions européennes et de leurs rapports avec différents types d’acteurs apparaît en effet comme l’approche la plus propice au contournement des deux écueils que sont, d’une part, le constat désenchanté des indéterminations de l’Union et, d’autre part, sa théorisation abstraite.
Les auteurs proposent une lecture simple et pédagogique du fonctionnement de l’Union qui, tout en faisant droit à la complexité des choses, évite de la dramatiser. Au fil de l’ouvrage, les questions-clé de la construction européenne sont abordées : déficit démocratique, politisation, rôle des Etats membres, européanisation, crise institutionnelle, représentation d’intérêts.
The existence of radically diverging views on the European political system within the EU’s own institutions is problematic at both theoretical and practical levels. Little is known, however, about this phenomenon, its impact on the EU’s agenda and policy-making as well as on constitutional reform. This book aims therefore at investigating the divergence in views about the European Union in order to lend insight into its consequences for the functioning of the EU and its institutions. It focuses on the main EU institutions, i.e. the Council, Commission, Parliament and Court but also deals with the visions of various European elites on the EU.
"
Articles
recognized as relevant and legitimate players at the supranational
level and given tools to be involved beyond the scrutiny of their
national government. However, the last decade brought new
challenges to the Europeanisation of national Parliaments, with
several crises boosting intergovernmentalism. This study,
commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for
Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the
AFCO Committee, examines how EU national Parliaments have
adapted to all these challenges and assesses their involvement in
EU affairs over the past decade.
Surprisingly, only limited attention has been dedicated to Euroscepticism at the heart of the EP, the EU’s only directly elected institution. EU specialists tend to focus on the institution, its committees, the way it works as well as the behaviour of the largest political groups, neglecting thereby the opposition and smaller groups. Conversely, party scholars tend to concentrate on Euroscepticism outside parliament, and to overlook the European level. As a result, the attitudes, motivations and strategies of Eurosceptics at the supranational level remain largely understudied.
Eurosceptic and eurocritical MEPs are at the centre of a paradox: they are particularly successful during EU elections, campaigning on the basis of a Eurosceptic / eurocritical platform but once elected, they have to operate in an institution, and more generally a political system, they criticize or even oppose. Despite extensive literature on Euroscepticism and abundant research on the EP, little is known about the individual activities of these MEPs and on how they perform their representative function.
This book aims at filling in this gap. It provides the first in-depth analysis of how and why Eurosceptics conceive and carry out their representative mandate once elected in the EP. Lying at the crossroads of different strands of literature (Euroscepticism studies, EU and legislative studies, party politics), it examines the particular situation of Eurosceptics in the EP through a comparison between MEPs from 16 Member States and 30 political parties.
More specifically, the book:
• investigates how these actors cope with the tension between the Eurosceptic platform on the basis of which they were elected and the tasks and expectations arising from their representative mandate. It proposes a typology of four strategies developed by these actors.
• examines what the implications of the presence of these dissenting voices are for the EP’s deliberation, and how the institution has managed their presence.
• provides food for thought regarding the implications of the presence of Eurosceptic MEPs. It discusses the issues of the institution’s representativeness, democratic legitimacy and politicization. It is argued here that the presence of these critical voices and their strategies in the EP, rather than endangering European integration, could be an asset for the affirmation of the EU as a democratic political system, open to conflict.
Cet ouvrage propose une analyse des régimes politiques des 28 États membres de l’Union européenne avec, en trame de fond, un questionnement relatif à l’émergence d’un modèle européen de démocratie. Cette nouvelle édition, mise à jour pour tenir compte des derniers développements politiques et institutionnels, montre que les démocraties européennes, bien que partageant certaines similitudes, portent aussi la trace de leur trajectoire nationale propre.
Free access until July 17 http://ips.sagepub.com/content/current
This book provides a concise analysis of the EU and its dynamics by paying particular attention to its day to day operation. It aims to help students and scholars understand its evolution, its institutions, its decision-making and the interactions between the EU and various actors. Avoiding abstract theorizing, the authors propose an easy to read analysis of how the Union works while recognizing the complexity of the situation. Throughout the book, the key issues of European integration are addressed: democratic deficit, politicization, the role of member states, institutional crisis and citizen involvement.
Cet ouvrage a pour ambition de fournir une analyse concise de l’Union et de ses dynamiques, en accordant une attention particulière à son fonctionnement concret. L’étude du processus décisionnel, des interactions entre les institutions européennes et de leurs rapports avec différents types d’acteurs apparaît en effet comme l’approche la plus propice au contournement des deux écueils que sont, d’une part, le constat désenchanté des indéterminations de l’Union et, d’autre part, sa théorisation abstraite.
Les auteurs proposent une lecture simple et pédagogique du fonctionnement de l’Union qui, tout en faisant droit à la complexité des choses, évite de la dramatiser. Au fil de l’ouvrage, les questions-clé de la construction européenne sont abordées : déficit démocratique, politisation, rôle des Etats membres, européanisation, crise institutionnelle, représentation d’intérêts.
The existence of radically diverging views on the European political system within the EU’s own institutions is problematic at both theoretical and practical levels. Little is known, however, about this phenomenon, its impact on the EU’s agenda and policy-making as well as on constitutional reform. This book aims therefore at investigating the divergence in views about the European Union in order to lend insight into its consequences for the functioning of the EU and its institutions. It focuses on the main EU institutions, i.e. the Council, Commission, Parliament and Court but also deals with the visions of various European elites on the EU.
"
The 2014 European elections demonstrated the scale and success of the EU’s opponents. Radical and populist
parties topped the polls in some countries while others gained parliamentary representation for the first
time. At the same time, Euroscepticism has entered the mainstream, with an increase of anti-EU rhetoric
among government parties and the European Conservative and Reformist group becoming the third largest
party in the European Parliament. In this context, this article aims at analysing the strategies developed by
Eurosceptics from the left, the right and the mainstream once elected to parliament but also at providing
food for thought regarding the implications of an (increased) presence of Eurosceptic MEPs. It provides a
typology of four roles played by Eurosceptics, showing the diversity of their strategies. It then argues that
the presence of these dissenting voices might be an asset for the EU’s legitimacy.
If attitudes of parties and citizens towards the EU have been much studied over the last two decades with the development of an abundant literature on Euroscepticism, these competing views of Europe at the supranational level have attracted limited attention from scholars. This chapter aims therefore at investigating diverging views of Europe and Euroscepticism at the supranational level. It will focus on the main EU institutions (Council, Commission, Parliament, Court) and examine the persistent nature of these diverging views about the EU.
A first part takes an historical perspective to explain why EU institutions have appeared so europhile over time. The second part examines the Eurosceptic and Eurocritical attitudes of members of EU institutions. It covers briefly the Commission and the Council before turning to the EP in the light of the 2014 elections. The last part discusses the implications for the EU and the functioning of its institutions.
This chapter focuses on Eurosceptic MEPs in order to examine their strategies inside the chamber. The aim is twofold. First, after a brief overview of the literature, I will examine to what extent the behaviour of Eurosceptics differ or not from the behaviour of non-Eurosceptic MEPs (Section 2). Second, through an analysis of the parliamentary activities and attitudes of Eurosceptic MEPs from the mainstream (European Conservatives and Reformists, Greens) as well as from the margins (European United Left–Nordic Green Left, Europe of Freedom and Democracy and non-attached) between 2004 and 2014, I will analyse the variety of strategies such MEPs develop in the Parliament (Section 3).
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/37462
In a few words, Minkenberg and Perrineau summarized the recent literature on the cooperation between right-wing nationalists. Indeed, most research stress the failures of the radical right to collaborate: as sovereignists and eurosceptics, it is indeed logical to expect that these actors object to the idea of an institutionalized cooperation at the supranational level, such as the creation of a transnational political party (Mudde 2007, Ensner 2012, Fieschi 2000, Hanley 2007).
However, reality seems to contradict the theory. Over the last few years, right wing nationalists have increasingly tried to cooperate at the European level. During the 2004 European elections, D. Ganley managed to create a pan-European eurosceptic platform called Libertas. Since 2005, three eurosceptic and nationalist European political parties have been established and received EU funding. Moreover, the referendum on the Constitution, the Lisbon treaty and the Fiscal Compact were used as a platform for the transnational mobilization of various eurosceptic movements and parties (Fitzgibbon 2009).
If there is now an abundant literature on the nature and sources of euroscepticism, the increasing transnational cooperation of Eurosceptic and nationalist actors remains understudied. In an attempt to fill in this gap, this chapter will focus on the so-called « untidy right » (Bell and Lord 1998) in the European Parliament to understand how and why such actors achieved (or not) to cooperate at the supranational level. More particularly, it will compare the radical right members who remain non-attached and the Eurosceptic right-wing members of Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. Based on interviews with EP officials and MEPs, it will analyse three variables: the interests of the actors and their national parties; the ideological factors and the institutional context.
This paper will focus on French Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and aims at exploring how they conciliate the territorial dimension(s) of their mandate. Indeed, they face an interesting situation as actors of a multi-level system of representation who have to strike a balance between various dimensions and identities (local, regional, national, European, partisan, functional) (Costa, 2002). Seating in a supranational assembly that is supposed to represent European citizens, they are elected in a regional context and often exert a local or regional mandate (through the ‘cumul des mandats’) while French political culture and history tend to emphasize a very abstract conception of representation of the nation (Costa & Kerrouche 2007).
Based on the qualitative and quantitative data on the French delegation in the EP collected in the framework of the LEGIPAR project, this paper will concentrate on the ‘focus of representation’ to determine what territorial dimension is prioritized by French MEPs and if a variation exists among them. It will explore which variables can account for these variations.
individual actors.
Rules play an essential role in legislatures and can be important tools for actors to shape procedures and activities (Norton 1998, Kreppel 2002). It is particularly the case in the EP, where formal rules can be highly contested and where parliamentarians have devoted a great amount of time in structuring the institution and its deliberation. Indeed, the EP debates have always been ambivalent. On the one hand, it can be very dull, because of multiple constraints such as the multilinguism, the technicality of the texts, the absence of division between majority and opposition, the predominant role of the working committees and the importance of negotiations. On the other hand, it can be very lively because of the lack of behavioral norms, the diversity of parliamentary traditions and the presence of eurosceptic members.
Therefore, deliberation within the assembly is generally soporific but can experience moments of extreme agitation. But as the EP has gained powers and saw its membership increased, major groups tried to maintain peaceful debates. They have frequently revised the internal rules of procedures to rationalize parliamentary activities and to foster tighter control
on parliamentarians’ behaviors.
However, little attention has been devoted in the literature to the internal organization of the EP and more particularly to the analysis of the rules of procedures (Bowler & Farrell 1995; McElroy 2007). Our paper intends to fill in this gap: through an analysis of the evolution of these rules, it will determine what the consequences of these revisions are, both for the institution and the parliamentarians.
Van Ingelgom Virginie, Integrating indifference. A comparative, qualitative and quantitative approach to the legitimacy of European integration, Colchester, ECPR Press, 2014.
Hobolt Sara B. and Tilley James, Blaming Europe ? Responsibility without Accountability in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014.
Dans le même temps, la question du rapport de l’Union avec les citoyens, qui était jusqu’alors un impensé de la construction européenne, a été posée avec force et est venue compliquer aussi bien la réforme des traités que le fonctionnement courant de l’Union.
Jusqu’au sommet des institutions européennes, on s’interroge sur le destin de l’Union, et les scénarios les plus divers sont envisagés pour sortir l’intégration de l’impasse. Plus que jamais, la construction européenne véhicule toutes sortes d’espoirs, de craintes et de fantasmes. En comprendre les rouages, les acteurs, les procédures, les règles et les dynamiques est un préalable à toute réflexion sur le sujet.
C’est l’objectif de cet ouvrage. Fondé en large partie sur les recherches des auteurs, il propose une lecture simple et pédagogique du fonctionnement de l’Union qui, tout en faisant droit à la complexité des choses, évite de la dramatiser. Au fil de l’ouvrage, les questions-clés de la construction européenne sont abordées : déficit démocratique, politisation, rôle des Etats membres, européanisation, crise institutionnelle, représentation d’intérêts, euroscepticisme.
Olivier Costa est Directeur de recherche au CNRS (Centre Emile Durkheim, Sciences Po Bordeaux) et Directeur du département d’études politiques et de gouvernance européennes au Collège d’Europe (Bruges). Il est co-directeur du Centre Européen d’Excellence Jean Monnet d’Aquitaine. Il enseigne les questions européennes et a publié de nombreux ouvrages et articles sur les institutions et politiques de l’Union. Ses recherches portent principalement sur le Parlement européen, le système institutionnel de l’Union et son processus décisionnel, l’européanisation et la représentation parlementaire aux niveaux européen et national. Il est éditeur associé du Journal of European Integration et membre du comité éditorial du Journal of Legislative Studies.
Nathalie Brack est Professeur à l’Université libre de Bruxelles (Cevipol) et Professeur invitée au Collège d’Europe (Bruges). Après son doctorat en science politique, elle a été post-doctorante à l’Université d’Oxford et chercheuse invitée à l’Université d’Anvers et à Sciences Po Bordeaux. Elle enseigne les questions européennes ainsi que les études parlementaires. Ses travaux portent principalement sur l’euroscepticisme, le Parlement européen, les legislative studies et l’opposition politique en démocratie. Ses recherches ont notamment été publiée dans Journal of Common Market Studies, International Political Science Review et Journal of European Integration.